The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the Guwahati High Court’s verdict declaring 27 petitioners foreigners. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta referred the cases to the respective foreign tribunal for fresh trial. The Supreme Court has held that the determination of citizenship and foreigner status carries deep constitutional significance and the entire process must be done in a fair, legal and reasonable manner.
Accepting the plea of the petitioners, the Supreme Court bench said that citizenship and foreigner status is a very important area from constitutional and legal point of view. However, the court also recognized the state’s interest in countering illegal claims to Indian citizenship. The bench noted that it is a legitimate and compelling interest of the State to ensure that persons who are not legally entitled to claim Indian citizenship cannot take advantage of abuse of process, false claims or delays in obtaining such status. At the same time, however, the Court emphasized that the governmental goal of preventing illegal immigration cannot ignore procedural neutrality. The judgment held that the legal obligations under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 would be fully applicable when the process for determination of status should be fair, lawful and reasonable.
Clarifying its position and scope of intervention, the bench said it did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim of the applicants for Indian citizenship or the factual status, admissibility or relevance of the documents submitted by them. These questions are to be decided independently by the respective tribunals. The Supreme Court also clarified that remand of cases to the Tribunal does not provide any relief to the petitioners. This order is not intended to confer any equality on behalf of a person who is unable to assert his claim. Its sole purpose is to ensure that serious consequences such as declaration as an alien arise only from a trial that meets the constitutional obligations of the Aliens Act 1946, the Aliens (Tribunals) Directive 1964 and impartiality.
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Guwahati High Court and the opinion and directions issued before the Foreigners Tribunal. The bench directed the concerned tribunal to decide the cases afresh without being influenced by any earlier observations made by the High Court or the Tribunal.
In the main case of these petitions, the Guwahati High Court dismissed the petition challenging the unilateral order of the Foreigners Tribunal. The High Court observed that the notices were duly served but the accused did not appear before the Tribunal and challenged the order only after nearly twenty three years. The High Court said the tribunal had no option but to uphold the earlier decision as there was no written statement, document or evidence from the accused. Further, the High Court noted that while a fair opportunity should be provided, it cannot be extended to an endless exercise.
Aliens Tribunals in Assam are quasi-judicial bodies that hear citizenship issues based on descent and foundation year 1971. These agencies mainly rely on documents submitted by individuals to prove their family residence in Assam or India, however, tribunals have been accused of biased and arbitrary behavior such as declaring individuals foreign based on minor spelling mistakes, lack of documents or lapses in memory.
Currently, the Supreme Court orders that foreign tribunals must try the petitioners’ cases afresh without being affected by the annulled earlier judgments. The Judiciary has given an important message to ensure impartiality and transparency in the trial process of the Tribunal by balancing the security of the state and the constitutional rights of the citizens.